Reflections from Circularity 2025

Brendan Condit

Director

North America

Table of Contents

• Textiles
• Reuse
• Built Environment
• Measurement
• Contact Us

Share this article

• Share via Linkedin
• Share via Facebook
• Share via X
• Share via Email

Circularity 2025, one of the top circularity-focused events in the world, wrapped up in Denver, Colorado a few weeks ago. Several Anthesis representatives were on hand to participate in panel discussions, lead roundtable sessions, and generally take the pulse of the industry.

The conference presented a dynamic and, at times, conflicting atmosphere, reflecting both a sense of meaningful progress and the large scope of work still ahead in achieving sustainability goals. Following are reflections from the Anthesis attendees on a few of the hot topics discussed at the event.

Textiles

Apparel circularity has been a major discussion topic for years, with many brands exploring owned, peer-to-peer, and partner-supported resale models. However, with the introduction of California SB 707, commonly known as the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024, there has been a noticeable shift of attention toward textile collection, sortation, and recycling technologies to enable fiber-to-fiber solutions. Though most of the hard details of the California regulation are still in formation, the conversation is gaining momentum among all players.

To accelerate this avenue of circularity, new partnerships and agreements are being announced with great frequency. One example: Goodwill Industries is positioning itself in the middle of the action as a go-to source for reliable end-of-life textile supply, and other familiar corporate names will rise in relevance as they shift traditional business models to meet the new opportunity created by California legislation. 

Key takeaway: Smart brands are not sitting on their hands while they wait for rules to be written, they are building their knowledge about EPR in general, looking to current regulation in Europe to help scenario-plan, and making sure their sales, product, and sourcing data are ready to go.

Reuse

When it comes to reuse, a recent and limited-time pilot program executed in Petaluma, California was the subject of discussion and deserved praise. A joint effort from Closed Loop Partners, competing beverage brands, and a host of local restaurants and coffee shops produced impressive results.

It’s long been understood that successful reuse models must minimise friction for consumers, with the best results coming from closed circuit environments—like those at sporting events and concert venues—where reuse options are the only choice. The Petaluma project took this idea to the next level by making reusable cups the default option at many local businesses, and making cup-drop locations nearly ubiquitous downtown.

These efforts boosted item cycle rates (the rate at which containers are returned by users and ultimately reused) over the threshold of environmental impact viability, uncommon for open circuit experiments. It’s a big step forward that highlighted both the possibility of achieving success with a city-wide reuse program, but also the large challenge that remains. Ultimately, container cycle rates are the most important metric. These rates will have to get much higher to have a meaningful environmental impact, while associated costs will need to come down.

Key takeaway: The power of precompetitive collaboration and a relentless focus on maximising consumer convenience and clarity of message are key to circular initiatives.

Built Environment

The magnitude of the environmental footprint of buildings is often overshadowed at circularity events by topics related to consumer brands. Fortunately, this trend seems to be changing, and several sessions addressed important topics in the built environment. Of note were discussions delving into strategies for building deconstruction, with a representative from the city of Boulder citing impressive results from a pilot they ran which successfully diverted >85% of reclaimed materials to recycling and reuse pathways. The effort was greatly helped by local policy requiring deconstruction over demolition, engineers to certify certain materials (like structural steel) as safe for reuse, and the ability to use available government land to store materials.

Just as with efforts in other industries, circularity for the built environment relies on our ability to accurately identify, grade, sort, and path reclaimed building materials to next life. Unsurprisingly, a number of technology providers are stepping up to help catalog and market reclaimed materials. This is great work, but even more significant progress will be unlocked by working further upstream, designing buildings for deconstruction from the very start, embracing Digital Product Passport (DPP) at material creation, and creating local policies that favor, or even require deconstruction versus traditional demolition.

Key takeaway: There is an already-high rate of material salvageability in building deconstruction, with more room to grow, and local policy and governmental partnerships are critical to encourage and facilitate it.

Measurement

A recurring theme of the conference was the lack of consensus around how to define and measure circularity. The multitude of metrics (e.g., CTI, MCI, LCAs) reveals a fragmented landscape with no unified approach, making it difficult to benchmark progress or set meaningful targets. In the absence of a universal framework, LCAs remain a critical tool, particularly at the design stage, for assessing the environmental impacts of circular interventions.

Anthesis Director Karine Kicak was a panelist in one of the best-attended sessions, Carbon Emissions and Circularity: the Scope 3 Quagmire. It drew a large and engaged audience, highlighting both the interest in and the challenges of aligning circularity with decarbonisation goals. A central issue discussed was how current greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting methodologies often fail to capture—or even disincentivise—the benefits of circular practices like reuse and remanufacturing. This misalignment between climate and circularity metrics is further compounded by organisational silos, where climate and circularity teams rarely collaborate. Despite these obstacles, the message was clear: don’t wait for perfect data or methodologies—begin implementing circular strategies now, with the understanding that measurement frameworks will eventually catch up.

A tension emerged throughout the conference between the urgency to scale up circular solutions and the slower, necessary work of impact assessment. There is a distinct difference between circularity at launch and at scale, with real implications for environmental outcomes.

Key takeaway: Measuring specific programs through LCAs and broader strategies via indices like CTI is essential, and critical refinements must be made to improve accuracy and incentivise taking the right actions. However, we mustn’t let progress slow while we reach measurement perfection. The ultimate goal is impact reduction. Measuring the precise magnitude of impact and apportioning it to the right sources is a means to the end—not the end in itself.